The Committee on Culture, Science and Education of the Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe has issued a report on The dangers of creationism in education. One of the most interesting parts of this report is that the committee does not back away from labeling Intelligent Design as a form of creationism. For example, in the opening paragraphs the report says,Creationism in any of its forms, such as “intelligent design”, is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are definitely inappropriate for science classes.Later on they define creationism using a great deal of common sense.
However, some people call for creationist theories to be taught in European schools alongside or even in place of the theory of evolution. From a scientific view point, there is absolutely no doubt that evolution is a central theory for our understanding of life on Earth.
The Assembly calls on education authorities in member states to promote scientific knowledge and the teaching of evolution and to oppose firmly any attempts at teaching creationism as a scientific discipline.
Creationists question the scientific character of certain items of knowledge and argue that the theory of evolution is only one interpretation among others. They accuse scientists of not providing enough evidence to establish the theory of evolution as scientifically valid. On the contrary, they defend their own statements as scientific. None of this stands up to objective analysis. ...I will continue to refer to Intelligent Design Creationism as an accurate representation of the views of people like Dembski, Behe, Phillips etc. Their allies, like Denyse O'Leary, are also creationists by my definition. They aren't Young Earth Creationists, they are Intelligent Design Creationists.
Creationism has many contradictory aspects. The “intelligent design” idea, which is the latest, more refined version of creationism, does not deny a certain degree of evolution but claims that this is the work of a superior intelligence. Though more subtle in its presentation, the doctrine of intelligent design is no less dangerous.
Readers might recall that I have been accused of inventing a new definition of "creationism" [Creationism Continuum]. Some people, even evolutionists, think that the only creationists are those who believe in the literal truth of Genesis. They maintain that it is wrong to refer to intelligent design proponents as creationists. Obviously, I disagree and I'm not alone. In fact, I'd go one step farther than the Committee on Culture, Science and Education, I'd say that Theistic Evolutionists are also creationists because they believe in a creator.
[Hat Tip: Panda's Thumb]
I like the chart showing the spectrum of Creationism, running from the YEC literalists through theistic evolutionists (I think Eugenie Scott had one as a figure somewhere). It can be entertaining listening to a YEC versus OEC debate.
ReplyDeleteI'm very glad that the draft resolution kept its conclusion and sharp formulation, and a bit surprised that it was unanimously adopted by the reporting committee.
ReplyDeleteBrowsing the report more in depth now that it is finalized it seems to be a direct reaction to Harun Yahya evangelism, which is described in detail, but it also surveys other creationist actions including the EP member Giertych's. [And they just had to remind me of the old swedish creationist museum in Umeå. Sigh!]
Good idea to give the full context description when referring to ID creationism. I will try to adopt that.
...I'd say that Theistic Evolutionists are also creationists because they believe in a creator.
ReplyDeleteGlad to find someone who also thinks this way.
...I'd say that Theistic Evolutionists are also creationists because they believe in a creator.
ReplyDeleteof course
(I think Eugenie Scott had one as a figure somewhere).
ReplyDeleteShe gave a very good presentation at the Evolution 2004 meeting, including such a figure. Very useful.
This is more good news from Europe.
Some things make me so mad! *grinding temples with knuckles in frustration*
ReplyDeletePlease don't ignore this comment! I love you because Christ first loved me enough to take my punishment for me, and He commanded the people He died for to tell others the truth. You are an educated man, and I hope you'll take an opportunity to be more informed about the other side of the evolution/intelligent design argument. That's only good debate etiquette. See if you can prove any of these statements to be wrong:
1. There has been not one piece of conclusive scientific evidence for the theory of evolution - ever!
2. The Bible has been historically and archaeologically proven to be accurate multiple times.
3. No scientific, archaeological or historical finding has ever contradicted the Bible's accounts.
4. Almost every geological or archaeological finding can be logically and completely explained by the Genesis flood: The Grand Canyon, layers of sediment, mass fossil beds, continental movement patterns and evidence of ancient weather cycles, even the possibility of sustaining monolithic animal life, like the large dinosaurs.
5. All of this is ignored, squelched, doused, swept under the carpet, and brow-beaten into non-exsistence.
By whom? Why do they want to do it? What is the driving motive? Just like the driving argument behind the abortion fight is not "women's choice or women's rights" (although that's the cover up), it is rather "Is this development a child or not? Is it human or not? When does it 'become' human?" so also the driving argument behind the evolution-Intelligent design war must be something like "Are we accountable for our lives to a greater power? Do we want to be? What if we are?" And they don't like the answers.
I thank you sincerely for reading this. Please forgive me if I was disrespectful in any way.
misshelenb says,
ReplyDelete1. There has been not one piece of conclusive scientific evidence for the theory of evolution - ever!
Yes there has.
2. The Bible has been historically and archaeologically proven to be accurate multiple times.
The Bible has been proven to be historically inaccurate hundreds of times.
3. No scientific, archaeological or historical finding has ever contradicted the Bible's accounts.
At last count, there are 10,462 major scientific, archaeological and historical findings that have contradicted the Bible.
4. Almost every geological or archaeological finding can be logically and completely explained by the Genesis flood: The Grand Canyon, layers of sediment, mass fossil beds, continental movement patterns and evidence of ancient weather cycles, even the possibility of sustaining monolithic animal life, like the large dinosaurs.
Not a single one of those things can be logically explained by a mythical flood.
5. All of this is ignored, squelched, doused, swept under the carpet, and brow-beaten into non-exsistence.
All of that has been addressed and refuted hundreds of time a year for over 200 years.
... I hope you'll take an opportunity to be more informed about the other side of the evolution/intelligent design argument. That's only good debate etiquette.
Thanks. I love a good debate. When do you plan to start?
Evolution is a theory so why is that not dangerous???? Intelligent design is not a theory. God has predicted things that would happen in the end times and they happening right before our very eyes. One: Israel will be the boiling pot of the world.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous asks,
ReplyDeleteEvolution is a theory so why is that not dangerous????
Nobody said it wasn't dangerous. It's just not as dangerous as the theory of gravity. Now, *that's* something you need to worry bout!